Posts Tagged ‘anti anti reactionary faq’

The anti-anti reactionary FAQ: war and democide

Sunday, December 1st, 2013

Scott, good progressive that he is, assures us that with the rise of democracy, war has diminished.

He gets this bizarre conclusion in two ways:  By starting the clock at Zhang Xianzhong, after which violence diminished, and by starting the clock at World War II, after which violence diminished.

But Zhang Xianzhong was a radical leftist, not an emperor, and violence diminished after Zhang Xianzhong, because everyone was so horrified by the bloodthirsty record of leftism that they did not let it rise again for centuries,

Let us instead start the clock at the Restoration.  We then see wars and genocide getting steadily bigger and bloodier to World War II.

As the world got more demotic, war, and democide increased from the days of the Restoration until World War II, after which we got the pax atomica, the peace of terror, the nuclear peace. Things were, during the nuclear peace, if not quiet, comparatively quiet. (more…)

The anti-anti reactionary FAQ: Sluts

Monday, November 11th, 2013

Scott, good progressive that he is, is horrified by the fact that reactionaries use the word “sluts” and feels that reactionaries are being illogical and inconsistent to endorse different standards for different genders. Which argument, like all his arguments, presupposes that men and women are exactly alike and everyone knows this and believes it.   So it is completely unnecessary for him to bother producing any argument for the proposition that men and women are alike.

Scott cannot believe that reactionaries say what they say and mean what they mean, and assures us that reactionaries do not really think that different standards apply to men than to women, and different standards should apply.  That would just be too awful even for reactionaries to think!

He piously explains that now that we have contraception and all that, there is no longer any reason for the old fashioned view of sluts. (more…)

The anti-anti reactionary FAQ Part 4, Ever leftwards movement

Sunday, November 3rd, 2013

In his anti reactionary FAQ Scott argues that ever leftwards movement is not a bunch of conspiracies run by Harvard and the State Department, but rather a natural response to prosperity and power.  We are richer and safer, so can afford a little decadence, perhaps a lot of decadence.

This fails to explain the ever more drastic measures applied by the state to move us left, for example population replacement, and the ever more strident propaganda in school and on television.

This also predicts that no crisis shall ensue, that we will reach an equilibrium level of leftism appropriate for our level of prosperity and power, that there is a natural level of leftism, and this natural level has moved left because we are richer, have contraception, treatment for sexually transmitted diseases, dominate all our enemies, etc.

But every other leftwards movement has become ever more extreme, moved leftwards ever faster, eventually resulting in crisis, usually a bloody and disastrous crisis.  The reason that leftists of anglosphere puritan origin rule the world is in large part because all the other left wing movements self destructed horribly, leaving Anglosphere leftists of puritan origin the last power standing.

Karl Marx predicted the second coming crisis of capitalism, in which capitalism would collapse, and the saints his followers take over.

I can confidently predict the collapse of leftism, but alas, not that the saints get to win. It sometimes happens that reactionaries take over after the crisis, and all is peace and order, but the more usual outcome is outside invaders take over, sometimes genocidally, or pirates and brigands take over, and slowly over centuries the brigands transition to being feudal lords.

A reactionary victory is possible.  Strange things are apt to happen as history approaches a left singularity.  White autogenocide is also possible, in which first all white heterosexual males are murdered, largely by each other, then all whites are murdered (Jews discovering to their great shock and surprise that they are white after all), all heterosexuals are murdered, and all males are murdered, then anyone insufficiently leftist is murdered, then the bar for being sufficiently leftist is raised, and raised again, until some of the remaining leftists wise up and murder everyone who is excessively leftist, thus ending the crisis.

If it winds up that bad, or any where near that bad, will not end in the second coming of Charles the Second.

The anti-anti reactionary FAQ Part 3, Freedom and Monarchy.

Wednesday, October 30th, 2013

In his anti reactionary FAQ Scott tells us how terribly repressive Queen Elizabeth was, failing to compare actually observable dissent in her time with actually observable dissent in our time:

Likewise, Elizabeth and the other monarchs in her line were never shy about killing anyone who spoke out against them. Henry VIII, Elizabeth’s father, passed new treason laws which defined as high treason “to refer to the Sovereign offensively in public writing”, “denying the Sovereign’s official styles and titles”, and “refusing to acknowledge the Sovereign as the Supreme Head of the Church of England”. Elizabeth herself added to these offenses “to attempt to defend the jurisdiction of the Pope over the English Church…”. Needless to say, the punishment for any of these was death, often by being drawn and quartered.

But every Shakespearean play was written from within the worldview that Roman Catholicism is true in its views about the next world, or that paganism is true, or that materialism is true and God or the gods care nothing for humans. They are incompatible with the official religion of which Queen Elizabeth was the head

In contrast, today every television show preaches our official religion. Thus, for example every father on television is an idiot and/or evil, and his family would be much better off without him. (more…)

The anti-anti reactionary FAQ Part 2, Crime.

Friday, October 25th, 2013

A major reactionary argument is that since the early eighteenth century, since the reign of throne and altar, war, state political repression, state violence against respectable citizens, underclass crime, and minority crime have all risen enormously, that the overclass and underclass are attacking the productive, and the attack has been escalating.

Scott’s anti reactionary FAQ  points out that murder is pretty much the same as ever it was.  Quite so.  Those crimes that the state tolerates are increasing – thus burglary, assault, and mugging has soared everywhere, whereas home invasion burglaries, where the criminals riotously enter an occupied dwelling, have only soared in those countries such as Britain where home invasion is tolerated.

Scott tells us that Victorians felt profoundly unsafe from crime:

Violent attacks by strangers were seen as grave cause for concern. There was a disproportionate amount of attention paid to violent nighttime assaults by strangers in urban areas, called “garroting” and similar to what we might call “mugging”. There were garroting panics in 1856 and 1862

He neglects to tell us why the Victorians panicked.

The Victorians panicked because, over the course of several weeks, two people in the city of London were mugged, a crime that they had no words for, never having experienced it before.

Scott points out that crime has diminished over the last few decades, neglecting to acknowledge that this is a short term and small decline compared to the long term trend of a gigantic rise in private and state violence.

The cause of the decline is pretty obvious in San Francisco. Police are kicking black ass. The highly progressive far left elite piously averts its eyes while its police force does extremely racist and reactionary things to protect them from minorities.

It seems the same thing has been happening everywhere.

Although progressivism moves steadily ever leftwards, in any one area of policy there are waves. First a large movement left. Disaster ensues, as with freeing the slaves, then a small movement right, as with Jim Crow. Then after a while, another large movement left.

Crime has diminished somewhat because we are in the small movement right phase with respect to crime. From what is happening in New York city, looks like the next large movement left phase is about to resume, whereupon we will see gentrification end, white flight resume and New York head off in the footsteps of Detroit.

Crime has risen because of movement left. It fell because, for a little while, we moved a little bit right on crime.  But since progressives always need each to be lefter than the other, they can only move rightwards on crime by moving leftwards on something else – and in due course, are coming back to moving leftwards on crime.

The anti-anti reactionary FAQ Part 1, Terror and mass murder

Wednesday, October 23rd, 2013

In this post, I address Scott’s anti reactionary FAQ on terrors and mass murders.  In other posts I will address economic growth, sex, freedom, art, and other issues. The anti reactionary FAQ is big, and has a lot of points, most of which I will deal with in separate posts.

Reactionaries say that democracy leads to the left singularity, which at best results in great suffering, and usually in mass murder.

Scott in his anti reactionary FAQ refutes this by a pile of supposed reactionary mass murders, notable among them the horrible reactionary mass murderer Zhang Xianzhong, better known to reactionaries as the horrible radical leftist mass murderer Chang Hsien-chong, the man who distributed the wealth of the landlords to the poor, then ate the landlords for oppressing the poor, then exterminated the intellectuals for infecting the poor with insufficiently progressive ideas, then flayed the poor alive for being insufficiently grateful for having the wealth of their oppressors redistributed to them. (more…)